"There is only one power that determines the course of history . . . the power of ideas." — Ayn Rand

Saturday, April 5, 2014

A Few Thoughts on the SCOTUS Campaign Finance Ruling

The United States Supreme Court recently struck down cumulative limits on direct contributions to political candidates, but left in place individual candidate contributions and donor disclosure requirements. In its editorial on the decision, the NJ Jersey Star-Ledger called the ruling a blow to democracy. Here are some excerpts:

These justices, the majority, decided that a First Amendment right was at stake here; that the Founding Fathers had intended the superrich (sic) to be able to donate $3.6 million every two years, instead of the previous cap of $123,200. So they ruled to kill the limits meant to keep fabulously wealthy people from overpowering our democracy. What this means is that rich donors will have virtually unlimited power to pick political contenders; that a few people will hold a giant megaphone in our elections, drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. It’s true that to a large degree, this already happens. But this week’s decision could only make it worse. The one consolation is disclosure. These unlimited contributions cannot be anonymous, unlike all the money mega-donors such as the Koch brothers spend on attack ads through shadowy private groups.

I left these comments:There is a clear distinction between direct contributions to candidates and independent spending for private advocacy. The term "shadowy private groups" illustrates clearly the state supremacist leanings of the anti-spending—meaning anti-free speech—crusaders. In a free constitutional republic, it is the government, its officials, and its workings that should be transparent. Private citizens have a fundamental right to their privacy. Calling private groups "shadowy" represents an inversion of a basic principle of a free society that any dictator would approve of.The First Amendment is unequivocal—"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Spending one's own resources is clearly integral to this freedom. Restricting the use of private resources means restricting free speech. Clearly, the Founders didn't intend to insulate the political class from the voices of the governed, by restricting the means by which those voices can be exercised. "Giant megaphones" are good for the democratic process in a free republic, and the more the better. Far from "drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens," they bring issues, opinions, and information to the wider public, enhancing the public discourse and debate. They give voice to people who agree with the message, and stimulate opposing views among those who disagree. The identity of the donor is irrelevant, except to people whose only form of "debate" is ad hominem.There may be a case for restricting direct campaign contributions and requiring candidate donor disclosure (I'm still undecided on that). But restricting independent private spending violates rights and is very dangerous to a free republic. We need not fear big spenders "overpowering our democracy." We should fear a government overpowering our liberties. Insulating the political class from the most effective private voices would only entrench the political incumbents and increase their power.

I view the ruling as a narrow one. The fundamental premise that the government may limit direct political contributions into candidates' campaigns and that donors (or the candidates) must disclose their identities was not overturned. The court merely eliminated the restriction on total contributions.In other words, as the Washington Post reports, the prior limit of $2600 per candidate per election cycle remains in effect. The court merely said that individuals "should be able to contribute that amount to as many candidates as he chooses." The prior aggregate limits of $48,000 for candidates and $74,000 for political parties and committees prevented individuals from doing so.I see nothing unreasonable about this ruling. Nor do I view it as anywhere near the equivalent of the major victory for free speech that the Citizens United decision was.Related Reading:Making Private Donations Anonymously is a Right

About Me

Greetings and welcome to my blog. My name is Michael A. (Mike) LaFerrara. I sometimes use the pen or "screen" name "Mike Zemack" or "Zemack" in online activism, such as posted comments on articles. “Zemack” stands for the first letters of the names of my six grandchildren. I was born in 1949 in New Jersey, U.S.A., where I retired from a career in the plumbing, building controls, and construction industries, and still reside with my wife of 45 years. The purpose of my blog is the discussion of a wide range of topics relating to human events. My analysis is informed by the principles of Objectivism, the philosophy of reason and independence originated by Ayn Rand.

As Rand observed: “The professional intellectual is the field agent of the army whose commander-in-chief is the philosopher.” I am certainly not the philosopher. But neither am I a field agent, or general. I am a foot soldier in that Objectivist army that fights for an individualist society in which every person can live in dignified sovereignty, by his own reasoned judgment, for his own sake, in that state of peaceful coexistence with his fellow man that only capitalist political and economic freedom can provide. While I am a fully committed Objectivist, my opinions are based on my own understanding of Objectivism, and should not be taken as definitive “Objectivist positions.” For the full story of my journey toward Objectivism, see my Introduction.

One final introductory note: I strongly recommend Philosophy, Who Needs it, which highlights the inescapable importance of philosophy in every individual's life. I can be reached at mal.atlas@comcast.net. Thanks, Mike LaFerrara.

Recommended Essays/Videos

Quotes I Like

Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it. Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter.—Francisco d'Anconia

I love getting older...I get to grow up and learn things. Madalyn, 5 years old, Montesorri student, and my grand-daughter

The best thing one can do for the poor is to not become one of them. Author Unknown

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. Francis Bacon

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. Ronald Reagan

Thinking is hard work. If it weren't, more people would do it. Henry Ford

Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries. Ayn Rand